• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Front Entry ?

tbz

tbz

SAWHORSE
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
1,391
Location
PA/NJ - Borderlands
Good afternoon everyone,

Sorta need a little input, please refrain from ADA information on this and keep to 2009 IBC Chapter 10.

Was called out for a quote on handrails for this small pizza shop. Building has been a pizza shop for over 30 years. Old owner not sure but gone, landlord re-renting to new tenant who is re-opening under new name.

New tenant had mason pull permit, submit drawing and build new steps. See drawing submitted and approved by building dept, with picture of steps built below that.

I will continue and ask my questions below the pictures...

124lincoln-sketch.jpg


124lincoln.jpg


So now that you have looked at the pictures here are my questions.

1.) Building department approved the sketch with a single note "Railings to code" but the sketch clearly notes 8" risers and the stairs are built to the sketch, which code requires 7" risers. The situation here is there is no room on the exterior to extend the steps out further because of the side walk, how would other handle this in your jurisdiction? Would you allow the higher riser?

2.) Next the sketch clearly shows 39.5 inches between the handrails with the door being wider than the handrails, this is an error on the sketch, as the door is only 33.5 inches wide. The point of the sketch was that the handrails would be set 39.5 inches a part, but this would clearly not allow for 12 inch extensions at the top, as the door frame is only 4.25 inches from the edge of the top tread/landing. With this situation would you allow the handrails to terminate in to the walls?

I have other questions, but with this situation how would other handle this or should I ask do any of you have any suggestions for me for installing handrails here, because compliant handrails can not be installed on non-compliant steps.

Thank you in advance for your input... Tom
 
Chapter 34 of the IBC or reference IEBC. You may want to also refer to the Overruled by Department Head post. A very good discussion, covering all aspects, including ADA and professional licensed designer responsibilities.
 
Agree with Papio, here is the code section

3404.1 General.

Except as provided by Section 3401.4 or this section, alterations to any building or structure shall comply with the requirements of the code for new construction. Alterations shall be such that the existing building or structure is no less complying with the provisions of this code than the existing building or structure was prior to the alteration .

Exceptions:

1. An existing stairway shall not be required to comply with the requirements of Section 1009 where the existing space and construction does not allow a reduction in pitch or slope.

2. Handrails otherwise required to comply with Section 1009.12 shall not be required to comply with the requirements of Section 1012.6 regarding full extension of the handrails where such extensions would be hazardous due to plan configuration.
 
tbz said:
Good afternoon everyone,Sorta need a little input, please refrain from ADA information on this and keep to 2009 IBC Chapter 10.
Click to expand...
If you are actually only able to keep to Chapter 10 of the 2009 IBC, then I don't have much input for you. 1009.4.2, exception 6, does allow you to reference Chapter 34, Section 3404.1., otherwise, your stair risers are non-compliant. Occupant load less than 50 allows you to have a 36" wide stair, otherwise non-compliant. Landing at top of stair, or lack there of, would be non-compliant. Handrails could be compliant, with exception for extensions and possibly clearances (difficult to tell how tight the space at the top of the stair becomes with handrail installed).

This is not a Chapter 10 compliant solution, however, for the sake of public safety and meeting ADA protruding object requirements, we would permit the handrail extension, in this case to bend 90degrees towards the planters and continue parallel with the sidewalk for the required length.
 
tbz,

Why the inset off of the sidewalk? Could they extend the stairs / steps out a little

( i.e. - to align with the flower bed masonry ), ..and add another step into the mix,

to reduce the 8" height of the risers, ...and possibly reduce the treads to at least

11"?

Also, in the picture, it appears that there aren't too many other places to attach

the handrail except the wall.

Because of your geographical location ( I'm assuming New Jersey ), are there

any issues / considerations with water accumulating on these environments

( i.e. - Section 1009.6.2, `09 IBC )?

Did the Bldg. Dept. also "sign off" on the non-compliance of the sketch?

.
 
Ok I would complain about the flower bed, but then if they could get handrails to work and returned the sidewalk ends over the flower bed, I be ok with it.

Reason it's not 36 but handrails protrude over the 36 in stair by a total of 9 inches(both side) making the vertical width 27 inches from handrail down to stair. (Handrails serving stairs and ramps are permitted to protrude 4.5 inches (114 mm) from the wall.)

As for meeting ADA it is not an alteration and wouldn't have to comply.
 
My two cents worth, IBC 2006, 3403.4 may apply to the existing stair height being allowed to be 8". I think?

pc1
 
Ok,

Thank you everyone for the information, the reason I limited you to chapter 10 was NJ deleted chapter 34 on adoption and has it's own re-hab for existing, see section from NJ code below.

GT - The current new stairs in place have 12" from the face of the door to the edge of that tread/landing start. The tread stones are 12" but they have a 1" lip, so they are really 11", Thus the only way would have been to reduce the top tread to the door distance. The town was very specific, not to exceed 23" from face of building which is the planter, the client told me if they were allowed they would have put a landing and then a ramp to around the side.

Also, I am not sure if they agreed to the non-compliance issue or not, the 8" risers are clearly marked on the submitted drawing, but they wrote "railings to code" also clearly which is not shown on my copy of the posted sketch, but is on the site copy with the approval stamp.

The planter is really not an issue since we planned to take the HR right to the front edge of the planter and in about 5 inches from the tread edge. So you would walk in to the hr before the planter. See elevation drawn below.

You are thinking why not just ask the building official, well this town is known for one thing getting approved, then the inspector failing it saying the contractor should know better, then when you start to question things your stuff goes to the bottom of the pile quickly and takes weeks to be found.

So I would rather get input from those of you here, then walk on egg shells when I go to see them.

124lincolhr.jpg


rehab%20code%20nj.jpg
 
FredK said:
Ok I would complain about the flower bed, but then if they could get handrails to work and returned the sidewalk ends over the flower bed, I be ok with it. Reason it's not 36 but handrails protrude over the 36 in stair by a total of 9 inches(both side) making the vertical width 27 inches from handrail down to stair. (Handrails serving stairs and ramps are permitted to protrude 4.5 inches (114 mm) from the wall.)

As for meeting ADA it is not an alteration and wouldn't have to comply.
Click to expand...
Fred - I spoke to the client about extending the handrails in to the door frame for the extensions, but they still would be 2" short and would reduce the existing door frame width from 33.5 by 6" inches to 27.5" and just think how hard it will be for people carrying pizza boxes in and out with the full 33", now reduce to 27".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RJJ said:
Agree with MT! your drawing didn't include the planters. I would like to see them trimmed back. How will the rail work?
Click to expand...
RJJ,

The sketch was not mine, it is a copy of the masons drawing submitted to the town for the permit, I am not sure if the planters were there before or not, but they did re-plantings in them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
tbz, sorry I did not pickup on the chapter 10 only! I'll try to pay a little more attention in class?

pc1
 
1009.4.2 Riser height and tread depth.

Stair riser heights shall be 7 inches (178 mm) maximum and 4 inches (102 mm) minimum. The riser height shall be measured vertically between the leading edges of adjacent treads. Rectangular tread depths shall be 11 inches (279 mm) minimum measured horizontally between the vertical planes of the foremost projection of adjacent treads and at a right angle to the tread's leading edge. Winder treads shall have a minimum tread depth of 11 inches (279 mm) measured between the vertical planes of the foremost projection of adjacent treads at the intersections with the walkline and a minimum tread depth of 10 inches (254 mm) within the clear width of the stair .

Exceptions:

6. See Section 3404.1 for the replacement of existing stairways .

Did they delete this? If not then it is an applicable reference from Chapter 10 and is enforceable by the AHJ. In other words you can use it even though chapter 34 was deleted. I realize it conflicts with what you posted but it is their error.
 
TBZ we in RI Stole your ReHab code in 2002 and it still applies the nice thing about it is we gave building construction issues to the Building Code and

Egress issues to the life safety NFPA code - To Existing Conditions chapter if use is equivalent or lesser of hazard classifications

also fire got Supression and Alarm. aside from acessibility issues (which apply somehow in RI) your solution would fly here and if some moderate

dimensional issues came up we have a Joint Forgivness Board of Review

nicer even is we kept ch 34 so if referred to Building code it is still there if we need it
 
To the original posting, the stair design was approved and the stairs look to be built to the approved design aside for the extra riser and tread. Wouldn't the best course of action now to be to submit a handrail/guard design for approval. get the approval or deniel with reasons and go from there. We, on occasion, approve something that may not be 100% perfect because of current conditions or common sense. Once you have approved designs, build them and be done. Here the whole issue would fall on the permit holder and/or RDP, which typically is not the shop/person making the handrail, or the mason building the stair.
 
FredK said:
As for meeting ADA it is not an alteration and wouldn't have to comply.
Click to expand...
You are wrong, A restaurant is a public accommodation and a place of public accommodation must remove barriers when it is readily achievable to do so. Although the facility may be "grandfathered" according to the local building code, the ADA does not have a provision to "grandfather" a facility. While a local building authority may not require any modifications to bring a building "up to code" until a renovation or major alteration is done, the ADA requires that a place of public accommodation remove barriers that are readily achievable even when no alterations or renovations are planned.

The question as it relates to ADA is it readily achievable to do so.
 
Well Mark, from the pictures I posted you have 60" from floor level edge to street lot line with 49" of rise, the total width of the lot is 30ft which includes the small space on each side of the building to the adjoining lot. The face of the building is 28" to the front lot line and then 44 inches of Public sidewalk to the street. My calculations say that with 49" of rise I need, I need 49 ft of ramp run, I am pretty flexible but readily achievable does not seem in the cards unless you figure a complete building tare down as readily achievable.

MT, NJ deleted sections 3401 through 3411 and under 1009.4 they deleted exception 6 that directs you to 3401, nice thought, but not viable.

FredK Am I asuming that there would be more pickets(guards) than what is shown? If so why not have the last upright at the edge of the flower planter and wrap the handrail extention around the 12". See pic the left side. http://stairs4u.com/building%20code/..._extension.htm
Click to expand...
Fred, you are assuming no guard required ( glass complies ) just handrail on post.

Also turning handrail extensions may seem good, but more times than not cause people to turn while descending off the last riser. Therefore from my personal research we have found they are not a good fix and shy away from them.

bgingras, that is are plan all a long, do a set of new sketches showing handrails and have the town okay them first, I will also send in a picture with the paperwork. I just wanted to see how others would treat this in there AHJ.

Thanks everyone for the input,
 
Tom

We can fix it, give me the address, I can contact the DOJ in the area, and they can mediate a solution, prior to a lawsuit

Extend the rails as for as possible, rotate the rails at the botton.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top